WrigleyField 22

I mean I think you always have to approach cut decisions with an honest assessment even when you have "a lot of space" or not. That space is always managed over a mid term picture so whether you had $80M of space or $20m of space it doesn't change the question of whether Edmunds worth $15m in 2026. I think they can replace Edmunds production with like half or less his $. But it does mean they have to be busy. They have a lot of pluggable holes, but the pure number of them is daunting and a challenge as things move fast as soon as that tampering period opens. Wouldn't mind seeing a weekend trade somewhere to address a hole in advance of FA.

The cap situation isn't even bad. Poles just hasn't demonstrated any sort of analytical view of cap mgmt.

Although I'd like the extra pick as well, if you told me the equivalent pick value of both Edmunds and DJ together was what DJ got, I'd probably have said, "okay. Sounds reasonable" Win some, lose some. And given the rumor of a Edmunds for Thibodeoux trade, I'll take the straight cut.

I'd really like to try and get younger not older. Don't wanna be the team holding the bag on aging players when the bottom falls out.

I really like the Over The Cap calculator. It's pretty intuitive. https://overthecap.com/calculator/chicago-bears Calculating max restructure potential (adding void years) is a little more complex, but since Poles has never used a void hear I don't think you need to worry about that. I'd group them as follows: 1. Guys with large guarantees (these are like the zero risk restructures, unless you think you'll trade them, but you probably know that by Monday) Sweat (potential 9.85m cap room as simple, non-void restructure) Thuney (7.6) Jackson (6.8) Jarrett (6.6) Gordon (6.0) 2. Guys with large base, but all/most unguaranteed. If you're pretty certain they'll have a roster spot this is low risk again. But if any you could argue aren't worth the salary, you could argue to cut instead of restructure Johnson (6.9) Kmet (4.3) - I'd think he's more a restructure at lower salary candidate Santos (0.95) 3. It's complicated Odeyinbingo (7.3) Edwards (3.6) These guys are complicated because of the injury. If either has injury insurance (I've heard they may) than I believe restructuring could impact insurance payments (depends on terms probably). With that being the case if either has insurance and misses the whole year you could get injury insurance payout and a cap credit for 2027. Don't wanna throw that away. If not for the injury, they'd be group one. Pretty much all the rest you can't because they are on rookie deals or in final year (could extend though) If you maxed out with void years the max potential is something like 100M (Over the Cap has a page for this, but I don't think it's updated for Moore/Dalman and I'm on my phone so hard to re-calc on my own easily right now) https://overthecap.com/restructure And to anyone who would question Jarrett (or Dayo/Edwards, injury aside) on the basis of ability, no it really doesn't mater. And in fact you can counterintuitively argue that worse players are better to restructure because someone like Sweat could become a trade candidate in a year (See Moore, DJ). And restructuring would actually create some inflexibility come trade time. Whereas you could easily create a 3 year cap plan on Jarrett (restructure + June 1 cut in 27), a bad contract you're stuck with for 2026. But actually if your aren't going to be a maximum restructure team the best bet IMO might be to take a little off the top of all those guys and spread your dead cap acceleration risk around a bit. But best would still be max restructure all for maximum flexibility (and roll excess)

And Daniel Jeremiah calls 50-75 the sweet spot of this draft. 🔥

You just reallocate it from elsewhere. It's all fungible. Follow the cash, not dead hits (which were already accounted for in a 3+ year outlook a team actually uses)

Late second seems like a solid spot to be in this draft. I normally don't love pick swaps to get a higher return, but probably makes sense here.

But dead cap doesn't matter

Bittersweet, but this makes too much sense. And Im glad he gets to go to a playoff team and not like the Raiders. Massive amounts of cap flexibility (albeit they lost 34 starts from 2025 roster in the past 48 hours). No cap liabilities on roster past 2028. Less than 35M of guarantees on the books past 2026 (including an upcoming vesting guarantee on Gordon)

Not a single view inside the stadium is a nice touch though

Man that's tough. Hope there isn't anything serious driving the decision.

Thats crazy value to give up for Montgomery

To add to that, all the teams ahead of Bulls in tank standings have a 2 or 3 win clip in the last 10. New Orleans is the only one of the 8 with no tank motivation (having a unprotected pick that the Bulls could have purportedly got, but I digress) But take Utah at 6. If they play at 0.200 pace they finish 5-23 and 23-59 overall. Bulls have already clinched their 24th win. If New Orleans can keep up 0.500 pace, Bulls can only afford 4 more wins to pass them.

Top 5 is a heavy left. I really can't see past top 7. The drop-off really begins at 6/7 right now (insert Gen alpha meme)

Full grades on everything. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/47987931/nfl-2026-report-cards-nflpa-32-teams Re field, 14 teams got C+ or above. So Bears tied at C with a handful, and then I think 11 at C- or below. Very few fake turf fields scored B range or above. Detroit and Minny I think were the only fake turfs above Chicago, and a couple fake turfs tied.

And here you go. So at very least not bottom 10

I'd be curious to see all the field grades. Fake turf has become very unpopular too. A lot of these categories in past are clearly not in a curve, so B+ is like median and C is basically an F. Wouldn't be surprised if turf looked more like a normal grade curve where C was actually average.

https://capitolnewsillinois.com/news/lawmakers-take-step-to-incentivize-bears-to-stay-in-illinois/ This article is a decent overview of some of the issues. Some issues more straightforward than others. However it's also evident how much the complexity of property tax assessment and levies are that the bill doesn't really account for given possible unique taxing body situations. It's a topic I don't even really fully grasp, but there was some clear concern that taxing jurisdictions where a mega project is a large parcel of the total assessment base of that district could end up really punting the tax levy burden to all the nearby properties that aren't part of the mega development. That's compounded by the length of time that these mega project incentives could last (up to 40 or 45 years) and the structure of how the agreement would be reached - weighted by the amount of each taxing body. Basically there probably need to be a ton of extar guardrails in place for it. The guardrails that are there are really just making sure the investment value or job requirements are met (along with some other things like minority investment). But nothing to protect for a insider giveaway that just shifts tax burden around to residents or other commercial property owners.

The Cleveland agreement has been referenced, but not sure there's a hard ask. I doubt Chicago lawmakers care where it comes from. If it's $500M of infrastructure, that's a W for them.

That, but also the bill itself has issues too, even if they handed Chicago $500M for museum campus infrastructure today.

House Bill 910 passes committee 13-7, but sounds like it has significant issues to work out. I don't think we'll see a House vote today, though they could. More ammemdments to come, but House will enter a recess until March 18

Sounds like PILOT bill will go up to committee. Can view text here if so inclined. https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?LegDocId=209446&DocName=10400HB0910ham001&DocNum=910&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=156588&GAID=18&SessionID=114&SpecSess=&Session= Can include fixed payments or subject to adjustment (over 40 years any municipality that doesn't enact some minimum adj for inflation is crazy) Provides sales tax exemption on building materials for 7-10 years with possible 5 year extension. Interestingly, mega project can't contain residential dwelling. Interesting addition that perhaps carves out the full development from any agreement re: Bears $500 investment or $250m and $100m with full time job requirements attached Incentive period is 23-40 years. Company required to operate site for minimum 20. Any other questions shoot them my way, I'll try to answer

"I didn't care about politics in my 20s so no one else in their 20s does"? And you don't know who Kash Patel is so sounds like you're still not.

Probably too niche. But sounds like the path is going to be wetting the beaks. We have a SF post-Bears plan and that will probably be the combined infrastructure bill to get Chicago votes on board.